· Public charity
Fairvote Action
FAIRVOTE ACTION campaigns for better elections for all.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k5 grants · $105k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
- $250k+1 grant · $285k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MAKE ALL VOTES COUNT DC | $285,000 |
| CALIFORNIA RCV INSTITUTE INC | $50,000 |
| PREFERENTIAL PRIMARIES ACTION | $35,000 |
| FAIRVOTE MINNESOTA | $25,000 |
| IOWA DEMOCRATIC PARTY | $25,000 |
| MISSOURI DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE | $10,000 |
| YES ON 117 | $10,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 58% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +19% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
7 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 65% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $155k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.
Backed again, and grew
- VPVERMONT PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP INC2× · 2021–2022 · $40k · revenue +5%
- CRCalifornia RCV Coalition Inc2× · 2022–2023 · $40k · revenue +75% · 37% of their budget
- NANATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NONPARTISAN REFORMERS2× · 2019–2020 · $20k · revenue +19%
Funded once
- RCRANKED CHOICE VOTING FOR SEATTLEone grant, 2022 · $390k
- PFPortlanders for Charter Reformone grant, 2022 · $75k
- OFOREGONIANS FOR BETTER ELECTIONSone grant, 2022 · $50k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Supports Measure to Remove Lawmakers Power to Set Their Own Pay
To promote electoral reform in Washington state
Educate public officials regarding Ranked Choice Voting and advocate for legislation
Voter Choice Arizona aims to educate Arizona voters about how Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), along with open primaries, will improve elections, give them more voice and more choice, and lead to better outcomes for our state.
Supports and opposes ballot measures in the 2024 General Election
Support state initative petition
Educate citizens and voters about Ranked Choice Voting as an alternative method of voting compared to traditional voting
Support "yes" vote on referendum dealing with national popular vote
Securing reforms to the electoral count act
Support ballot measure
Opposition of local San Francisco ballot initiative to consolidate city elections to even-year.
To educate the public on fairer voting methods especially STAR voting and advocate for and support its implementation
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Partners in Democracy Inc and the most unlike its peers is Portlanders for Charter Reform. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
15 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 15 of the 35 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds Portlanders for Charter Reform ↗
- Who funds California RCV Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds VERMONT PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP INC ↗
- Who funds California RCV Coalition Inc ↗
- Who funds FairVote Minnesota Foundation ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NONPARTISAN REFORMERS ↗
- Who funds FairVote Illinois Action ↗
- Who funds OREGON RANKED CHOICE VOTING ADVOCATES ↗
- Who funds PARTNERS IN DEMOCRACY INC ↗
- Who funds Alaskans for Better Elections ↗
- Who funds RANKED CHOICE VOTING FOR TEXAS ↗
- Who funds Yes on 117 ↗
- Who funds Better Elections for Santa Clara Yes on Measure A ↗
- Who funds COALITION FOR DC REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds FIX DEMOCRACY FIRST EDUCATION FUND ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Unite America Inc · Unite America Institute Inc · Article IV · Proteus Fund Inc
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Fairvote Action funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.